Do the trybots build the release version? Because I had a build break last
week that passed the 3 basic trybots, but failed to compile on the release
buildbots because of a missing include which was apparently pulled in
through other means in the debug version.
-atw
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Nicolas Sylvain <nsylv...@chromium.org>wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Kenneth Russell <k...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM, John Abd-El-Malek <j...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> > But this means that the person didn't use the trybot.
>> > I think we need to be harsher on people who commit with changes that
>> didn't
>> > complete or failed on the trybot. They need to have a really good
>> reason as
>> > to why they want to try their change on the buildbot and possibly delay
>> many
>> > other engineers.
>>
>> For the record, I completely support immediate backouts of changes
>> that break the tree, and agree that all changes should go through the
>> trybots -- but sometimes the trybots don't work. I don't know anything
>> about the architectural differences between the trybots and buildbots,
>> but from recent experience I think the trybots are trying to do
>> incremental builds, when that isn't guaranteed to always work.
>>
> even the bots on the main waterfall do incremental builds (except some of
> them).
> If the change requires a clobber, use "gcl try CHANGENAME -c" to run the
> code
> on the try bot doing a full build.
>
>>
>> If it's just a matter of throwing hardware at the problem of making
>> the trybots nearly 100% reliable I think we should make that
>> investment.
>
>
>> -Ken
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ben Goodger (Google) <b...@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The most common case of "< 5 minute" bustage fix is "file was omitted
>> >> from changelist".
>> >>
>> >> -Ben
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Ojan Vafai <o...@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To be clear, here's the proposed policy: Any change that would close
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> tree can be reverted if it can't be fixed in <2 minutes.
>> >> >
>> >> > How about:
>> >> > If a change closes the tree, the change author has 1 or 2 minutes to
>> >> > respond
>> >> > to a ping. The change should be reverted if the author doesn't
>> respond,
>> >> > if
>> >> > he says to revert, or if he does not say he has a fix within the next
>> 5
>> >> > minutes.
>> >> > I can't fix _any_ problem in 2 minutes. But I can fix most of them
>> in
>> >> > 5.
>> >> > The goal is to allow the author a reasonable chance to fix trivial
>> >> > problems
>> >> > before we revert. And I think the tree should go ahead and close
>> during
>> >> > that interval.
>> >> > PK
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
